As one of the most polarizing figures in the Harper government, Toews’s announcement Monday that he was stepping down from politics was met, not surprisingly, with mixed reaction and heated discussion about his legacy.

Toews’s not-unexpected-resignation as a minister and Member of Parliament, effective Tuesday, came amid anticipation about a major cabinet shuffle by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

“The time has come to step aside and begin the next chapter of my life,” Toews, 60, said in lengthy statement. “I am leaving public life in order to focus on my family and to pursue opportunities in the private sector.”

Toews was first elected to Parliament as a Manitoba member of Parliament in 2000. He served as minister of justice and president of the Treasury Board before taking on the role of public safety minister, which saw him oversee a number of key agencies, including the RCMP, CSIS, Corrections Canada, and the Canada Border Services Agency.

Toews touted himself as a champion of victims’ rights, who was determined to make “communities stronger” and build “safer streets.”

On Monday, he defended that legacy in his statement.

“I leave public office at a time when I believe our country is more sensitive to the needs of victims, more fiscally sound and safer for citizens and future generations of Canadians,” he said.

Ex-NHL star Sheldon Kennedy, who was sexually abused by coach Graham James as a young player and stood alongside Toews in 2010 as he announced tough new restrictions for offenders to get pardons, praised Toews’s legacy.

“To be able to eliminate pardons for sex offenders I think is huge,” Kennedy told the Canadian Press. “Vic’s made some hard changes that … you know you’re going to get flak for and he made them because they needed to be made — not because they’re popular.”

But Steve Sullivan, former federal ombudsman for victims of crime, said Toews spent too much responding to peripheral, high-profile cases and crafting policy that was guided more by ideology than evidence.

The tough-on-crime approach, he said, will likely result in coming years in deteriorating prison conditions: bloated populations, more double-bunking and insufficient programs for treatment.

“Probably in hindsight, a lot of the changes he made will end up being detrimental,” said Sullivan, now executive director of Ottawa Victim Services.

Rob Gordon, director of SFU’s school of criminology, agreed, saying in an email that Toews’s legacy included an “unnecessary and largely theatrical swing towards increased punitiveness in the Canadian criminal justice system” and “the emasculation of anything progressive in the Canadian correctional system.”

Asked to comment on Toews’s legacy, NDP opposition MP Charlie Angus responded that “all too often we saw spite and short-sightedness instead of gravitas. I think that’s all I can say about Mr. Toews.”

Toews oversaw passage of legislation designed to improve RCMP accountability, provide more protections to witnesses of crime and combat terrorism. He was also the face of legislation intended to crack down on human smuggling.

At times, he clashed with civil liberties groups, even with Canada’s chiefs of police, over issues such as the controversial repeal of the long-gun registry.

But Tony Bernardo, acting executive director of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, praised Toews not only for scrapping the registry but for also taking a firm stance against the creation by provincial firearms officers of any so-called “backdoor” gun registries.

“We’re sad to see him leave. We’re grateful for the positive things he did for our community,” Bernardo said.

One of the more tumultuous moments in Toews’s political career came in early 2012 when he got flak for suggesting in the House that lawmakers who didn’t support the government’s bill to give police easier access to phone and Internet subscriber information — dubbed the Internet “snooping” bill by critics — sided with child pornographers.

Toews subsequently came under attack by an anonymous Twitter account, which dished out purported details of his messy divorce. A Liberal staffer was later identified as being behind the “Vikileaks” account.

Toews’s relationship with RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson at times was frosty, such as late last year when he publicly chastised the top Mountie for discussing the results of a gender-audit with Postmedia News before it had been officially released and demanded a plan of action be delivered to him to address issues raised in the audit.

His office was also criticized for appearing to micromanage the RCMP when it established a “communications protocol” with the force, requiring the force to provide “timely situational awareness” to the minister’s office on all public communications that might draw national attention.

Despite repeated calls by outside experts for the government to create an external civilian management board for the RCMP to help the force bring about true cultural change within the force, Toews rejected the idea earlier this year, saying there were sufficient accountability and oversight structures in place.

“Report after report has highlighted the deficiencies associated with the RCMP primarily because the organization is trying to be all things to all people. Yet nothing of substance changes,” Gordon said.

Following is the full statement by the Hon. Vic Toews, Member of Parliament for Provencher, Minister of Public Safety, and Regional Minister for Manitoba

(STEINBACH, MB) July 8, 2013 – Today, I am announcing my resignation as Member of Parliament for Provencher, Minister of Public Safety, and Regional Minister for Manitoba, effective tomorrow, Tuesday, July 9th.

It has been an honour to represent the people of Provencher for the past 12 and-a-half years in the House of Commons. I would like to express my gratitude to my constituents for placing their trust in me. It is a responsibility I took very seriously and a privilege I will never forget.

I would like to thank Prime Minister Stephen Harper for giving me the opportunity to serve in his Cabinet as the Regional Minister for Manitoba since 2006 and, concurrently, in turn, as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the President of the Treasury Board, and as Minister of Public Safety. Our Prime Minister is a man of great character and integrity. His leadership has seen our country through very difficult economic times. Canada is recognized as a global leader and is the envy of nations around the world. I know that Canadians will continue to benefit from this government’s ongoing work.

I would also like to thank all of my parliamentary colleagues for their friendship and support. Specifically, I would like to thank the members of the Manitoba Federal Conservative Caucus. I could not be more proud of you and the work you do on behalf of our Province.

I would not have been able to do my job if not for the competent and talented staff members who worked beside me over the years. Thank you to all of my staff in my riding offices, my regional office in Winnipeg and to my political and departmental staff in Ottawa. You have always been extremely dedicated and hard working. You have had a very positive impact on my life and for that I will always be grateful.

The lifeblood of any political organization is its volunteers. Over the years I have met many volunteers who have worked hard on my campaigns and in many other capacities between elections. You have made all the difference. Thank you for your tireless efforts and enthusiasm.

I would like to thank my spouse Stacey, my children and my extended family and friends for their patience and understanding. There are tremendous sacrifices made by family members so that elected officials can serve in public office. It is not an easy life for family and words alone cannot describe my gratitude for your unyielding support.

When I entered federal politics in 2000, I did so with the intention of making a positive contribution to Canada by being a part of the movement to unite conservatives across the country. Looking back, I believe I accomplished what I did because of my desire to work with other like-minded people. Teamwork is the best way for individual Members of Parliament to accomplish the long-term goals of their constituents.

I leave public office at a time when I believe our country is more sensitive to the needs of victims, more fiscally sound and safer for citizens and future generations of Canadians.

I am proud of the achievements of our government over the last seven years. In addition to the numerous steps we have taken to rebalance the criminal justice system to ensure that criminals are held accountable to individual victims and Canadian society as a whole, we were able to renew Canada’s physical infrastructure. My home province of Manitoba received support for hundreds of important projects, including funds for the completion of the Red River Floodway Expansion Project.

During my time as Minister of Public Safety, I was honoured to support the Prime Minister in the negotiation and implementation of the Beyond the Border Action Plan. I was also particularly proud that our government created Canada’s first Counter-Terrorism and Cyber-Security strategies, implemented a Human Trafficking Action Plan, and began a discussion with all levels of government on the economics of policing in Canada. These accomplishments are just some of the ways our government has made Canada a stronger, safer and more prosperous country.

It takes a great deal of deliberation on the part of those who decide to enter politics. It takes an even greater amount of consideration and effort to step out of office when one still enjoys the support of those who elected them. However, for me, the time has come to step aside and begin the next chapter of my life.

I am leaving public life in order to focus on my family and to pursue opportunities in the private sector. I leave with a store of many wonderful memories, lifelong friendships and a sense of having accomplished many of the things I set out to do when I first began my political journey.

In a letter to his constituents, Ashfield, a Conservative MP from Fredericton, said he had not been feeling well in recent weeks and was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. But he said he hoped to continue serving the people in his riding.

“We were fortunate to have caught this in the very early stages and — with treatment — there is a high rate of successful recovery,” Ashfield said. “My prognosis at this time is excellent. My treatment has begun and will continue through the summer.”

Ashfield, who oversaw major changes to Canada’s Fisheries Act, shifting the focus of the environmental law from protecting fish habitat to protecting specific types of fisheries, said he remained in good spirits and expected to continue his role as a minister in the “immediate term,” but that he wanted to step down from that role in the next cabinet shuffle.

“This will allow me to spend more time with my family and focus my energy fully on my riding and serving the people who elected me,” Ashfield wrote.

Harper said on his Twitter account that he and his wife Laureen were “saddened” to hear about Ashfield’s news and “wish him well in his recovery.”

Laureen & I are saddened to hear about Min Ashfield’s news & wish him well in his recovery. As always, the #CPC family is behind you.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/fisheries-minister-keith-ashfield-asks-to-leave-cabinet-to-fight-cancer/feed0Keith AshfieldmikejdesouzaHarper government eliminated reviews for oilsands projects following warnings of water disruptionhttp://o.canada.com/business/harper-government-eliminated-reviews-for-oilsands-projects-following-warnings-of-water-disruption
http://o.canada.com/business/harper-government-eliminated-reviews-for-oilsands-projects-following-warnings-of-water-disruption#commentsTue, 28 May 2013 21:01:56 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=255708]]>OTTAWA — The federal government removed some oilsands projects from a list of those requiring environmental screenings, after being told in an internal memorandum that this form of industrial development could disturb water sources and harm fish habitat.

The memo to the deputy minister of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, dated May 5, 2011, came a year before Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government introduced hundreds of pages of changes to Canada’s environmental laws, which will allow the government to exclude some oilsands projects from reviews.

In total, the changes eliminated about 3,000 federal environmental assessments, including hundreds of evaluations of projects involving fossil fuels and pipeline development, once the laws were adopted in July 2012. Ministers in Harper’s government said this would reduce unnecessary delays and focus federal resources on investigating projects with the greatest potential impacts on the environment.

Expansion of conventional oilsands mines, which use large amounts of water and energy to extract the heavy oil, still require federal assessments even under changes proposed by the federal government.

A graphic from a Natural Resources Canada pamphlet shows an in-situ oilsands site.

The internal memorandum suggested that some in-situ oilsands projects, involving the injection of steam deep underground to extract heavy oil from Alberta’s natural bitumen deposits, also required reviews and authorizations because of threats to the water supply and fish habitat.

The memo said the department was previously monitoring the impact of new road construction at the sites on fish habitat, but had “recently” noticed the additional threats to water from in-situ projects. This form of oilsands development, expected to be the main source of industry expansion in the future, is not on a new proposed list of projects requiring federal environmental evaluations.

“Steam injection operations have the potential to cause surface upheaval and groundwater extraction operations may impact groundwater-surface water interactions,” said the memo, signed by David Balfour, a senior assistant deputy minister, and accepted by Claire Dansereau, the deputy minister. “This could result in reductions in surface water flows in watercourses, leading to potential impacts on fish habitat.”

The Fisheries Act previously allowed for the minister to issue an authorization, allowing industrial developers to disrupt fish habitat, provided that they compensate with other measures to protect ecosystems.

The new laws adopted in July, removed a requirement for some authorizations, shifting the focus instead to the protection of commercial, recreational or aboriginal fisheries.

The memo, obtained using access to information legislation, also included a background document, dated March 30, 2011, that challenged statements, proposed by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and “based on the advice from experts in Alberta and Natural Resources Canada” that there was “little possibility” of in-situ oilsands operations disrupting fish habitat.

“This statement should be deleted from the document since it is not an accurate reflection of (the Department of Fisheries and Ocean’s) position with respect to our regulatory review of in-situ projects,” said a comment inserted by the department. “DFO anticipates that in some higher risk areas the issuance of a Fisheries Act authorization may be necessary for impacts to fish habitat associated with groundwater disturbance activity as a result of in-situ operations.”

Keith Stewart, a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace Canada who obtained the memo, said the document suggests the federal government is not meeting its constitutional responsibilities to protect the rights and way of life of First Nations.

“It looks to me like the government ignored the advice of its scientists,” Stewart said. “It’s an issue that First Nations have been raising for a long time, and I’ve never seen it confirmed by the federal government as a problem, before now.”

When asked for comment, Greg Stringham, the vice-president of an industry lobby group — the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers — emailed Postmedia News a statement saying that environmental standards were not compromised by recent federal reforms, noting that in-situ projects were subject to “rigorous” provincial reviews in Alberta.

Alberta’s Environment Department emailed a similar statement stating that projects were only approved after ensuring they were using the best technology and meeting strict standards to reduce impacts.

“We know that industrial development has impacts,” wrote spokesman Trevor Gemmell. “That is why all industrial activities are subject to environmental regulations in Alberta, and large projects require a stringent environmental assessment.”

A few hours after this story was published online, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans responded to questions from Postmedia News with an email saying that these types of oilsands projects did not require assessments in the past and that the department did not anticipate that this would change under the amended Fisheries Act.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency also emailed Postmedia News on Wednesday, saying that the environment minister could require an environmental assessment because of the “potential for adverse environmental effects on matters of federal jurisdiction or if there are public concerns about those effects.”

Natural Resources Canada and Environment Canada both declined to answer questions from Postmedia News about the memo, saying that they were not the lead departments on the issue.

]]>http://o.canada.com/business/harper-government-eliminated-reviews-for-oilsands-projects-following-warnings-of-water-disruption/feed8OilSandsSince1984mikejdesouzaA graphic from a Natural Resources Canada pamphlet shows an in-situ oilsands site.Fisheries Department reaches deal with think tank to save freshwater research facilityhttp://o.canada.com/technology/environment/fisheries-department-reaches-deal-with-think-tank-to-save-freshwater-research-facility
http://o.canada.com/technology/environment/fisheries-department-reaches-deal-with-think-tank-to-save-freshwater-research-facility#commentsThu, 09 May 2013 18:44:42 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=245693]]>OTTAWA — Some federal scientists working at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans may soon gain new freedom to control their research and speak in public, under a tentative deal announced Thursday to transfer management of a world-renowned freshwater research facility that opened in 1968.

The arrangement would transfer the management of the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA), a research site made up of dozens of lakes near Kenora in northwestern Ontario, to a Manitoba-based think tank, the International Institute for Sustainable Development.

The deal also allows scientists to continue ongoing experiments this summer that were in jeopardy because of a decision made last year by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government to cancel about $2 million in annual funding for the site. The dozens of lakes were used for decades to measure impacts of industrial pollution and climate change on natural ecosystems. The site’s research helped establish a historic North American treaty cracking down on pollution linked to acid rain and was also used to guide regulations restricting the use of phosphates in liquid detergents.

“I think this is a great day for underscoring how important evidence-based science is in helping guide policy decisions,” said Scott Vaughan, president and CEO of the research organization in an interview.

He explained that transparency was a critical part of his institute’s practices.

“So we would be transparent of the type of works that’s underway (and) we continue that work (and) that scientists speak freely to the press,” he said. “That’s a core part of our approach to this.”

The parties would now need to finalize details with the Ontario government, which has offered support for funding, as well as determining liability and remediation costs associated with the site.

Vaughan said that federal scientists doing research at the lakes could eventually continue their work as employees of the think tank.

“It’s going to be their choice, but we’re looking at whether they would actually become IISD employees,” he said, explaining that the deal would also require endorsement from his board of directors.

“We’re doing everything we can to keep that group (of scientists, technicians, support staff and security) that’s been doing this work, intact.”

David Gillis, director general for ecosystems science at the Fisheries Department, said the government had about 15 employees at the site, expected to remain until the end of the summer, and believed it would be good if they have the opportunity to continue their research with the institute.

“That would be very good news for those scientists and we would be very pleased to see that the expertise that has contributed to the success of the ELA over the last number of years would be available,” Gillis told Postmedia News.

“We have encouraged them (officials at IISD) to look at, not just the facilities but the people, because it takes the two of them together to make a facility like that work.”

He said that some employees may be offered opportunities in new roles at the department, but that it was unlikely that they would all have offers.

Reading from a prepared statement in the House of Commons, Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield thanked some Conservative MPs for “continued hard work” related to the ELA, saying that the tentative deal was an important step forward for the facility’s future.

Vaughan said his organization currently has an annual budget of about $15 million and may need to do additional fundraising and obtain support from governments to manage the site’s estimated operational costs of about $2 million per year.

Several scientists who worked at the site said in recent months that they had encouraged the institute to get involved, suggesting that the federal government was not actively trying to save the facility.

Britt Hall, associate professor from the University of Regina’s biology department, said she was pleased to hear about the transfer, explaining that she had little faith in the commitment of the Harper government to protect scientific research.

“Even if the ELA had stayed within this federal government – Harper’s government – I don’t believe it would have thrived,” said Hall. “In fact, I suspect it would have just been gradually starved to death.”

Hall, who is part of a team in the midst of a study at the site that could help explain how long it takes a lake to recover from contamination caused by mercury emissions from a coal-fired power plant, explained that the new management could give researchers more freedom to look at issues that might have been avoided by the government, such as regional impacts of oilsands development.

“I believe that this type of research is a federal responsibility,” said Hall. “I think that long-term monitoring is best-suited to governments. But I don’t trust this (federal) government with something so precious.”

]]>http://o.canada.com/technology/environment/fisheries-department-reaches-deal-with-think-tank-to-save-freshwater-research-facility/feed1wynnemikejdesouzaBlog: Stephen Harper’s Conservatives say Fisheries Act was used to protect puddleshttp://o.canada.com/technology/environment/blog-stephen-harpers-tories-say-fisheries-act-used-to-protect-puddles
http://o.canada.com/technology/environment/blog-stephen-harpers-tories-say-fisheries-act-used-to-protect-puddles#commentsFri, 03 May 2013 15:47:18 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=242132]]>OTTAWA-Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative party is telling its supporters that its government overhauled a major water pollution law last year because it believed it was used to protect puddles.

The message contrasts with an explanation last year from the minister responsible for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Keith Ashfield, who suggested the changes were designed to help make it easier for industrial facilities to pollute water.

The Conservatives are saying on their website that their critics aren’t telling the real story about the changes they made.

“We do not believe it is sensible, or practical, to treat all bodies of water – from puddles to the Great Lakes – the same way, and our government is making long-overdue changes to our rules to focus DFO on what is important to Canadians.”

Stephen Harper’s Conservatives suggest the fisheries law was protecting puddles.

Ashfield said in June 2012 that the government was changing the Fisheries Act, considered at the time to be one of Canada’s most powerful environmental protection laws, because it needed new tools to authorize pollution.

“There are currently few tools to authorize pollution other than by detailed regulations,” Ashfield wrote in a June 14 letter to Todd Panas, president of the Union of Environment Workers. “For example, the amended Fisheries Act will provide flexibility and establish new tools to authorize deposits of deleterious substances.”

Thomas Siddon, a former Conservative fisheries minister, is among the critics of the recent changes that were adopted by Parliament in July as part of hundreds of pages of changes to Canada’s environmental laws.

Siddon said the changes to the Fisheries Act weaken the law and compromise the minister’s constitutional responsibility to protect fisheries.

Ashfield’s office was not immediately able to comment on the claims made on the Conservative party website.

]]>http://o.canada.com/technology/environment/blog-stephen-harpers-tories-say-fisheries-act-used-to-protect-puddles/feed0Keith AshfieldmikejdesouzaStephen Harper's Conservatives suggest the fisheries law was protecting puddles.The year we overhauled environmental protection: Postmedia’s Mike De Souza chronicles the changehttp://o.canada.com/news/national/the-year-we-overhauled-environmental-protection-postmedias-mike-de-souza-chronicles-the-change
http://o.canada.com/news/national/the-year-we-overhauled-environmental-protection-postmedias-mike-de-souza-chronicles-the-change#commentsWed, 26 Dec 2012 18:04:49 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=172618]]>Postmedia News reporters recall a story that stood out for them in 2012. Today, Mike De Souza reflects:

It’s rare that some 3,000 environmental assessments get cancelled overnight.

But this is what happened on July 6, 2012 as Parliament, backed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative majority government, overhauled Canada’s conservation laws to speed up economic development and reduce federal oversight of industrial projects.

One government watchdog, Scott Vaughan, the federal commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, decided the changes called for an investigation.

The government has publicly described its economic plan – including millions of dollars in new spending to advertise alleged benefits and to investigate environmental charities – as a “responsible” way to develop natural resources. But its ministers haven’t actively reached out to answer questions about their policies in Parliament or in public.

Occasionally, they published statements highlighting progress on some environmental policies, such as regulations to crack down on emissions from dirty coal electricity plants.

The changes to laws protecting fisheries, navigable waters and endangered species were also accompanied by multimillion-dollar cuts to programs and research that helped the government monitor contamination of air, water and wildlife, as well as to spending that promoted green jobs and cleaned up environmental disasters.

For example, the cuts targeted a unique team of seven smokestack specialists who monitored compliance on air pollution regulations, as well as a 40-year-old research lab studying water pollution that helped guide an international acid rain treaty.

Internal documents uncovered by Postmedia News in 2012 revealed that the plan was promoted by industry to ramp up oil, gas and pipeline projects, despite an assessment from federal bureaucrats that the government had already reduced red tape. The bureaucrats also warned that further reductions could undermine environmental protection.

These major elements from Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s 2012 budget put a new stamp on environmental protection laws and policies from decades in the past. It will also likely give Postmedia News more to write about in 2013.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/the-year-we-overhauled-environmental-protection-postmedias-mike-de-souza-chronicles-the-change/feed7polarmikejdesouzaFederal fisheries officials stalling on talks to protect waterhttp://o.canada.com/technology/environment/federal-fisheries-officials-stalling-on-talks-to-protect-water
http://o.canada.com/technology/environment/federal-fisheries-officials-stalling-on-talks-to-protect-water#commentsSun, 09 Dec 2012 18:00:48 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=164815]]>OTTAWA – The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has no formal plans to consult with stakeholders on new regulations or partnerships to prevent industrial pollution in the wake of a major changes to environmental protection laws adopted last summer, says newly-released internal correspondence obtained by Postmedia News.

Despite pledging to develop new regulations and partnerships to protect Canadian waterways when it implemented the changes to Canada’s Fisheries Act and other legislation, the department is unable to provide any timelines or details of its progress, nearly six months later

A department spokeswoman, Melanie Carkner, told Postmedia News it was continuing discussions with a “variety of stakeholders,” and that new regulations “should be published at the same time as the final amendments to the Fisheries Act come into effect.”

The latest changes to the legislation are expected to be adopted by the Senate this month, following changes from July that removed federal protection of fish habitat, shifting the focus toward protecting commercial, recreational or aboriginal fisheries.

Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield, who is temporarily on medical leave, touted the new legislation last spring, noting that it gives the Harper government new tools to authorize industrial water pollution.

The government also indicated that it could subsequently use standards developed by industry associations to guide its efforts, provided that they meet “strict requirements” for fisheries protection.

But conservation groups are concerned about the environmental impacts of the legislation and budget cuts, noting that the government isn’t actively following through on its commitment to work with them on new partnerships.

Craig Orr, an ecologist and executive director of Watershed Watch Salmon Society, said groups have “struggled” to get information on where the legislation is going.

“The problem is they’re just putting it off and putting it off, and we just need to see something concrete for some kind of consultation on the details,” said Orr, who is also part of a Pacific region caucus consulted by the department. “The changes seem to be announced at a breakneck speed but the public is not being engaged… and they just don’t know when the engagement is going to happen and whether it’s going to be done in a meaningful way.”

Orr said a senior official at the department – in charge of its “transformation” – told him it hasn’t confirmed any engagement plans and was not anticipating any major workshops or gatherings with stakeholders.

“I do expect that we will engage folks in bilateral meetings and perhaps in the context of the regulatory process,” wrote Trevor Swerdfager, assistant deputy minister of transformation in a Nov. 21 email to Orr. “Other than that, we do not have a large formal process planned.”

Other internal emails, obtained by Postmedia News through access to information legislation, reveal that department officials were uneasy about a reporter asking questions and “really latching on to this partnerships thing.”

“Is there anything else we can say about it at this time, or can we simply tell him that the ‘how’ will be developed through policy and regulations over the coming months?” wrote Alain Belle-Isle, a manager of public affairs and strategic communications in a June 28 email to other department officials.

“I think we need to be clear with him about what this means. He’ll keep coming until he gets an explicit answer.”

Fisheries and Oceans Canada was unable to answer several follow-up questions from Postmedia News sent last Wednesday about the nature of Swerdfager’s role in “transforming” the department or about consultations and partnerships with conservation groups.

Carkner said there were delays in getting answers because of a high level of illnesses within the department last week.

Orr said he has spoken to some Fisheries and Oceans employees who are troubled by recent cuts to resources and personnel responsible for habitat protection.

“There’s a huge amount of angst and depression in the department over this whole issue of habitat protection,” Orr said.

The changes also provoked confusion between Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans officials in the summer as each asked the other to explain Ashfield’s comments in a letter that touted the need for new tools to authorize water pollution.

“We are not certain which ‘new tools’ are being referred to in the letter,” said Environment Canada spokesman Mark Johnson in an internal email sent to his counterpart, Carkner, at Fisheries and Oceans on June 28.

Johnson had suggested one day earlier that the Fisheries Department should ask their minister, Ashfield, to explain his comments.

“I’m sure you see how it would seem bizarre that EC should clarify a statement made by Minister Ashfield,” he wrote. “Please advise.”

]]>http://o.canada.com/technology/environment/federal-fisheries-officials-stalling-on-talks-to-protect-water/feed2Keith AshfieldmikejdesouzaHarper minister ducks questions on plan to “authorize” water pollutionhttp://o.canada.com/news/politics-and-the-nation/parliament/harper-minister-ducks-questions-on-plan-to-authorize-water-pollution
http://o.canada.com/news/politics-and-the-nation/parliament/harper-minister-ducks-questions-on-plan-to-authorize-water-pollution#commentsFri, 29 Jun 2012 17:10:33 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=66251]]>OTTAWA – Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s minister in charge of protecting Canada’s fisheries does not appear to have an explanation for suggesting that the country needs new rules to “authorize” more water pollution.

Several days after Postmedia News reported he had made this argument in support of new environmental legislation, that was expected to be adopted on Friday, Fisheries and Oceans Minister Keith Ashfield has not offered to explain his own remarks.

“There are currently few tools to authorize pollution other than by detailed regulations,” Ashfield wrote in a June 14 letter to Todd Panas, president of the Union of Environment Workers. “For example, the amended Fisheries Act will provide flexibility and establish new tools to authorize deposits of deleterious substances.”

Ashfield recently signed a departmental report that warned the government’s “change agenda” for protecting Canada’s fisheries could be overturned in court, but that it could also boost morale within the department and its public image through a new communications strategy.

Internal department records, released through access to information legislation, have also warned that heavy workloads and high turnover within the department could jeopardize the federal government’s ability to protect Canadians from the dangerous impacts of industrial projects.

Up until this year’s federal budget and its supporting legislation, Canada’s Fisheries Act, considered to be the country’s strongest environmental law, prohibited the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat without a special authorization from the minister that would usually be accompanied by requirements to compensate for the damage caused.

Ashfield said in his letter to the union that the changes introduced this year were intended to support a shift from managing impacts on fish habitat toward managing threats to fisheries.

Critics, including former Conservative fisheries minister Thomas Siddon, have suggested the changes would weaken the law and compromise the minister’s constitutional responsibility to protect fisheries.

Budget cuts within the fisheries department are among millions of dollars in layoffs and reductions to federal scientific research and monitoring of Canada’s air, water, oceans and wildlife that were announced as part of the Harper government’s plan to balance the country’s books.

Ashfield’s letter suggested that the government could also outsource services to protect fisheries to third parties.

His office referred questions about the letter to his department.

It declined to say what criteria would be used to issue contracts or whether private firms would be eligible to receive them, but it has suggested that conservation groups could be qualified to do some of the work required.

The department referred other questions about his comments regarding the alleged need to “authorize” more water pollution to Environment Canada, which was not immediately able to provide a comment.

You can find a copy of Ashfield’s letter below, followed by an internal presentation by senior officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, outlining key components of the Fisheries Act, before it was amended in the budget bill.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/politics-and-the-nation/parliament/harper-minister-ducks-questions-on-plan-to-authorize-water-pollution/feed5Keith AshfieldmikejdesouzaFisheries Minister Gail Shea defends water pollution cutshttp://o.canada.com/news/fisheries-minister-gail-shea-defends-water-pollution-cuts
http://o.canada.com/news/fisheries-minister-gail-shea-defends-water-pollution-cuts#commentsTue, 20 Nov 2012 20:22:06 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=153811]]>OTTAWA – Federal Fisheries Minister Gail Shea is defending a government decision to wind down a major scientific facility studying water pollution, explaining her department can now meet its research needs by focusing on its other Canadian facilities.

In response to questions raised by NDP fisheries critic Robert Chisholm, Shea also explained why the Department of Fisheries and Oceans pledged new grants to scientists at the facility – known as the Experimental Lakes Area – right before the government decided to withdraw from the decades-old site through cuts in its 2012 budget.

“While budget 2012 was in development, the department was undergoing its normally established planning process for scientific research, including requesting research proposals from departmental scientists,” wrote Shea, in a document tabled in Parliament this week.

“The department is now focusing on work being conducted at other freshwater research facilities across the country, which will more than adequately meet the departmental research needs.”

Shea is temporarily handling the fisheries portfolio for Keith Ashfield, who took a leave of absence after suffering a heart attack in October.

She added that managers were working with researchers at the facility, estimated to have operating costs of about $2 million per year, on transition plans that could include transferring ownership and control of the facility to a third party.

“While the department is winding down operations at the Experimental Lakes Area, it is continuing to conduct freshwater research in various other locations across Canada,” Shea wrote in the statement. “The department hopes to transfer the Experimental Lakes Area so that the research can continue to be conducted by another party that will benefit from it.”

Chisholm said the answers suggest the government didn’t adequately analyze its options before deciding to wind down the facility.

“It’s pretty sloppy, frankly,” Chisholm said in an interview. “It does show a real lack of overall connection and understanding of exactly what’s happening.”

Environment Minister Peter Kent praised the research facility last May, explaining that it allowed scientists to examine the impacts of human activity and “greatly aided development of the acid rain treaty (with the United States) 21 years ago.” But he said the government was now trying to move its science westward to expand its understanding of impacts of the oilsands industry.

More than a dozen Canadian scientists sent Kent a letter on Nov. 9, asking Environment Canada to take over ownership of the facility, to ensure that its research remains independent and in the public interest.

The government has declined to comment on specifics of its negotiations to transfer the facility and the parties involved.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/fisheries-minister-gail-shea-defends-water-pollution-cuts/feed0Gail Shea arrives at Rideau Hal to be sworn-in as Canada's fisheries minister, in OttawamikejdesouzaNative groups angry at ‘snub’ from new federal hunting-fishing panelhttp://o.canada.com/uncategorized/native-groups-angry-at-snub-from-new-federal-hunting-fishing-panel
http://o.canada.com/uncategorized/native-groups-angry-at-snub-from-new-federal-hunting-fishing-panel#commentsTue, 05 Jun 2012 02:12:32 +0000http://blogs.canada.com/?p=58458]]>OTTAWA — Aboriginal groups are upset they have been excluded from Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s new hunting and angling advisory panel, arguing the Conservative government has snubbed the only Canadians with constitutionally protected hunting and fishing rights.

Aboriginal representatives say British Columbia Conservative MP Mark Strahl — whose father Chuck was the former Aboriginal Affairs minister in the Harper government — has assured them he will raise the matter Tuesday in a private meeting with Environment Minister Peter Kent and Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield.

Harper announced last week his government is creating a hunting and angling advisory panel that will report to the environment minister, fulfilling a Conservative party election campaign promise.

It will provide advice to the government on programs and policies “related to conservation and hunting and fishing, and promoting and encouraging the effective stewardship of Canada’s marine and terrestrial wildlife,” according to the government.

The panel includes provincial and territorial representatives from 19 hunting, angling and wildlife organizations — but there are no aboriginal groups named to the committee.

“It’s ridiculous that indigenous peoples who very much depend on the land and its resources — including fishing and hunting — are not included in anyway whatsoever,” said Grand Chief Edward John with the First Nations Summit, an organization comprised of a majority of First Nations and tribal councils in B.C.

“It just sends the wrong signal.”

Ernie Crey, a senior adviser to the Sto:lo Tribal Council of eight First Nations in B.C. and former employee at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, said he views the government’s decision as “poor planning and probably a snub.”

“What’s missing is the voice of people who have a constitutionally protected right of access to hunt and to fish and to harvest wildlife,” he said.

Crey, who’s also a fisherman and an executive committee member of the Lower Fraser Fisheries Alliance of around 30 First Nations, is urging the government to correct what he calls a “glaring omission” and include aboriginal organizations on the committee.

“If they’re not prepared to do it, then we’ve got a serious attitude problem,” he added.

Strahl, the MP for Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon, said in an email that he will raise the concerns expressed by Crey and aboriginal groups when he meets Tuesday with the environment and fisheries ministers.

But the environment minister doesn’t appear willing to change the composition of the advisory panel.

Kent said Monday in an emailed statement that aboriginal groups regularly have their voices heard through several government departments and agencies such as Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, Environment Canada and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

“The hunting and fishing advisory panel was struck to create a dialogue with this important segment of the population who have previously been under-consulted, and to address issues with hunters and anglers who are regulated by permits and licences,” Kent said in the statement.

“First Nations have constitutional rights to hunt and fish, and are routinely engaged in consultations on a wide array of subjects including hunting, fishing, and conservation . . . on all policy matters that impact Aboriginal lands, customs and way of life.”

Also Monday, the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation in northern Alberta attacked the federal and provincial governments for “failing to adequately protect our waterways and wildlife,” after finding two deformed, lesion-covered fish in Lake Athabasca downstream of oilsands operations.

The government’s new advisory panel was announced as the Conservatives face growing backlash from opposition parties, environmental organizations and citizens groups about its sweeping budget implementation legislation.

Bill C-38 would scrap or rewrite several Canadian environmental protection laws and remove federal oversight and accountability mechanisms under the existing legislation.

As part of it, the Fisheries Act would be stripped of requirements to protect fish habitat, and instead would focus on supporting commercial, recreational or aboriginal fisheries.

The bill would also weaken existing provisions of the Species At Risk Act that restrict permits for projects that threaten critical habitat.

Four former federal fisheries ministers, including Tom Siddon (who served during the Mulroney era), wrote a joint letter last week to Harper condemning the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act.

Moreover, the advisory panel includes organizations influenced and funded by sources outside Canada, when the Conservatives have accused some Canadian environmental groups of using foreign money to attack domestic interests, including major pipeline projects.

Late Thursday Ashfield issued a statement to “correct the record” about the muzzling of Kristi Miller, a leading salmon researcher on the west coast.

He then proceeds to suggest the “‘allegations of restricted access” involve Miller’s research reports, when the problem, laid out in federal documents, is that the government silenced the scientist herself.

The research and report by Dr. Kristi Miller on Pacific salmon was not withheld from anyone,” Ashfield says.

“Dr. Miller’s report was published in a broadly circulated science magazine and remains widely available to the media and public through the Fisheries and Oceans Canada website, and as an exhibit through the Commission’s website.”

No one has said the Miller’s science report was suppressed.

The issue is that Miller has not been allowed to speak about her report, or discuss its significance. That is known as muzzling and suppression and many scientists and observers see it as a big problem.

Miller was in the news this week because federal documents, released to Postmedia News through access-to-information laws, reveal she has been silenced by the Privy Council Office.

They show that early this year Miller was not allowed to publicly discuss her study that has turned up evidence that salmon bound for the Fraser River may be dying before they spawn because of some sort of viral infection they are picking up at sea.

The highly technical findings were published in the journal Science in January. The journal considered the work so significant it notified more than 7,400 journalists worldwide to Miller’s “suffering salmon” study.

The journal told Miller to “feel free” to speak to journalists and it suggested reporters interview Miller .

Journalists lined up to speak with Dr. Miller in January but she was not allowed to give interviews. And she still can’t.

Ashfield says the reason for silencing Miller is because the Cohen Commission is examining Fraser River sockeye declines.

Our government has been very clear that judicial inquiries are not conducted through the media,” Ashfield says.

“Evidence that may be relevant to Justice Cohen’s findings should be managed through the commission process.”

It’s an excuse many don’t buy. An editorial in the Time Colonist in Victoria described it Thursday as “transparently stupid.”

Scientists’ public discussion of their work won’t affect a judicial inquiry,“ it said.

Ashfield also insists his department is committed to providing the media and public with access to government scientists and their research.

As evidence he points to a study this week showing Canada’s East Coast fishery is on the road to recovery. He notes how DFO scientist Kenneth Frank, who led the study published in the journal Nature, spoke to “nearly a dozen” reporters this week.

Frank likely would have done a lot more interviews had he not had to cool his heels waiting for permission from DFO’s media shop.

Frank did not get the OK to speak to reporters until late Tuesday, five days after the journal Nature sent a notice to media outlets worldwide alerting them to the study.

The journal Nature accepted Frank’s study for publication on June 13, which gave the department more than a month to clear Frank to do interviews. Instead it waited until after the phones started ringing.